db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <rick.hille...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: PlanExporter library requirements (DERBY-4587) (long message)
Date Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:47:50 GMT
Kathey Marsden wrote:
>  On 7/23/2010 5:54 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>>  On 7/20/2010 7:03 PM, Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>>> I agree wholeheartedly  as well with these points.   As for my 
>>>> admittedly  gut level concerns for adding the JQuery (non-Apache  
>>>> license)  build dependency and necessary NOTICE update, I sent an 
>>>> email query to someone that understands these issues better than I 
>>>> and hope to hear back soon.  I will post as soon as I understand it 
>>>> better.
>>> Well Nirmal, I still don't understand things yet, but don't think I 
>>> should ask you to wait any longer.  I think you should investigate 
>>> build options that are as loosely coupled as possible as Bryan 
>>> suggests and ideally a build that will succeed if JQuery is not 
>>> present, but not build the functionality that needs it.  This is 
>>> what we used to do with the osgi.jar requirement before we checked 
>>> in the felix source for building.
>>> Thanks
>>> Kathey
>>  We need to continue to have a product which builds completely out of 
>> the box. 
> I think appropriately licensed stubs for the build would be ok if we 
> don't repackage code, but as I said I don't understand the licensing 
> considerations in this case and won't be back on the list for a couple 
> weeks.  I think a loosely coupled build would not be a regression as 
> this is adding new functionality and would not regress any existing 
> functionality. Some better long term build strategy could be 
> implemented later and still let Nirmal finish his summer project.   I 
> agree that repackaging source in the product would be really bad.
I agree that we should avoid repackaging the JQuery source. Creating 
stubs is probably a big chore--it may not buy us much either since 
JQuery will evolve over time and the stubs will have to track that 
evolution. Some kind of plugin architecture may be what's needed here.
> As an aside  I think the build still has the Junit dependency, but 
> maybe just for the tests. I haven't tried building just the product, 
> but it would be great if someday that was not required for ant all.
That's right. We still have that extra hurdle for new Derby developers 
who want to test their changes. But we have made big progress for users 
who want to build a patch distribution from the head of a branch. They 
will get a complete product if they just build what's checked into 

> Thanks
> Kathey

View raw message